Australian Professor Bob Carter opposed carbon tax, was paid by polluting industry front group
Scientist accepts ‘cash for climate’, The Age, Ben Cubby February 16, 2012 A PROMINENT Australian scientist has rejected as offensive any suggestion he is doing the bidding of a US climate-sceptic think tank that is paying him a monthly fee. Confidential documents leaked from inside The Heartland Institute, a wealthy think tank based in Chicago and Washington, detail strategy and funding for an array of activities designed to spread doubt about climate change science, paid for by companies that have a financial interest in continuing to release greenhouse gases without government interference. The think tank has now issued a statement saying the strategy and budget documents had been stolen, and claiming one of them was faked……
Among the documents that Heartland does not claim to be faked, is a budget showing payments to selected scientists.
One of the recipients of funding is Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University, a geologist and marine researcher who spoke at the “convoys of no confidence” protests against the carbon price last year alongside the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, and writes columns for News Ltd newspapers.
The documents show Professor Carter receives a “monthly payment” of $US1667 ($1550) as part of a program to pay “high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message”.
Professor Carter did not deny he was being paid by The Heartland Institute, but would not confirm the amount, or if the think tank expected anything in return for its money……
Altogether, more than $US20 million had been spent funding and co-ordinating the activities of climate sceptics and bloggers since 2007, the documents suggest.
Other cash recipients include Anthony Watts, the leading US climate sceptic blogger, who is to receive $US90,000 for his work this year. Programs slated for funding include new curriculum modules that teach science from a climate-sceptic perspective, to be sent to US schools……
This year, the document says Heartland would “approach dozens of companies and trade associations that are actively seeking allies in this battle.”
The organisation’s funding comes from 1800 donors, including many manufacturing and resources businesses, and also drug companies….
The documents were first published on a Canadian website, DeSmogBlog, which monitors the public relations efforts by some industry groups to discredit climate change science.
“An important message here is for the media to learn how to recognise this co-ordinated attack on science and to see through the PR pollution that Heartland and its network creates to cast doubt on climate change,” said the website’s executive director, Brendan DeMelle….. Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientist-accepts-cash-for-climate-20120215-1t7ho.html#ixzz1mbkNwIA9
The crooked campaigns of Fred Singer and Co to hoodwink the public on Climate Chnage
THE PLANET VS EAST BUMCRACK*: THE CORRUPT SCIENCE OF DR FRED SINGER Independent Australia: By Sandi Keane, 28 May 2011 http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/environment/crackers-3-fred-singer-and-the-non-conserving-neo-conservatives/ “…….In Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway’s thorough inquisition into this public deception, Merchants of Doubt, Dr Fred Singer, Singer is confirmed as one of a small cadre of scientists who were, and still are, responsible for hoodwinking the public, time and time again. With strong industry and conservative political connections, they ran an effective campaign to mislead the public over a period of four decades. ….
Japan’s nuclear safety regulators in bed with the nuclear industry
He said that regulators had been too cozy with the industry.
Japan Ignored Nuclear Risks, Official Says, NYT, By HIROKO TABUCHI February 15, 2012 TOKYO — In surprisingly frank public testimony on Wednesday,Japan’s nuclear safety chief said the country’s regulations were fundamentally flawed and laid out a somber picture of a nuclear industry shaped by freewheeling power companies, toothless regulators and a government more interested in promoting nuclear energy than in safeguarding the health of its citizens. Continue reading
New website challenges the pro nuclear “radiation is OK” spin
Look – I know that this one is “heavy going” for those of us who are not crash hot on science.
I don’t usually publish items that are so scientifically challenging. But the thing is – we’re all gonna have to get a bit more informed scientifically.
Why? Because, along with the Climate Denialists, and the Creation Scientists, – we’re now facing the “Radiation Denialists”.
These guys, fronting for the nuclear industry, have now come up with two dodgy “scientific” slogans – “radiation hormesis” and “adaptive response”. Sound good – don’t they? But they are both no more than a bodgy attempt to con us all into thinking that low level ionising radiation is not harmful, is even good for you. They want the current radiation standards changed – for the benefit of the nuclear industry.
The new web page – below – will counter their scientific bullshit. It is my hope that not only the great unwashed are reading this page, and aspiring to become better informed, but also scientists, who need to become aware of the radiation “spin” now going on. All need to be aware of this new con. – Christina Macpherson
RADIATION HORMESIS AND ADAPTIVE RESPONSE Radiation Hormesis and Adaptive Response – Definitions. by nuclearhistory , 16 Feb 2011, “……. Adaptive response and 
hormesis are often mentioned to minimize the risk of radiation or sometimes to deny any adverse outcome below a dose threshold…
We may wonder why the proponents of the hormesis model acknowledge a radiation threshold value for harmful effects, but reject it for beneficial effects…..
The Linear No Threshold hypothesis should remain so far the basic guide line for the radioprotection authorities. It appears clearly that the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle, which is currently the basis of radiation protection policies, should be followed as long as no relevant scientific facts provide other insights. …..
Belgian Nuclear Research Centre http://www.sckcen.be/
The European Radiation Research Society, contact person Dr. Louis de Saint-Georges, secretary-treasurer. The European Radiation Research Society (formerly the European Society of Radiation Biology) is an Europeannon profit organisation founded in 1959 with the aim of promoting radiation research http://www.errs.eu/….
http://hormesishistory.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/radiation-hormesis-and-adaptive-response-definitions/
Australia’s pro nuclear zealots continue to “spin” Fukushima
One year on, Fukushima is still spinning The Drum, Jim Green, 16 Feb 12, The first anniversary of the Fukushima disaster is fast approaching and it promises to be another silly-season for Australia’s pro-nuclear zealots.
They have form. While the crisis was unfolding in March last year, Ziggy Switkowski advised that“the best place to be whenever there’s an earthquake is at the perimeter of a nuclear plant because they are designed so well.”
Switkowski wants dozens of nuclear power plants built in Australia – dozens of places to shelter from earthquakes.
Even as nuclear fuel meltdown was in full swing at Fukushima, Adelaide University’s Professor Barry Brook reassured us that:
“There is no credible risk of a serious accident… Those spreading FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] at the moment will be the ones left with egg on their faces. I am happy to be quoted forever after on the above if I am wrong … but I won’t be.”
Eggs, anyone? Continue reading
Lowy Institute debased public debate on uranium sales to India
The Lowy Institute takes money from Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, the two companies that stand to profit most from the Labor government’s policy change. I’ve never once seen that funding disclosed in relevant Lowy Institute publications. …
The think tank that didn’t, Online opinion, By Jim Green – , 16 February 2012 “………The opening up of nuclear trade with India − which began with the 2008 US-India agreement − is problematic on several levels. For starters, Medcalf wants us to believe that we can play a more effective role in promoting non-proliferation and disarmament in India by first permitting uranium sales. The US, Australia and some other suppliers have conspicuously failed to use their bargaining chip (the opening up of nuclear trade) to leverage outcomes such as Indian ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. According to Medcalf’s ‘logic’, we’ll be in a better bargaining position after we’ve given up our bargaining chip (for nothing) than before.”..
…[The Lowy Institute] did seriously debase the [nuclear] debate…….Let’s get to the main problem: Medcalf dimisses weapons proliferation-based objections to nuclear trade with India as “false” and “fallacious”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Nuclear trade with India also alters the proliferation equation for other countries. Ron Walker, a former Australian diplomat and former Chair of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said: “Yes, India is a democracy and yes we want to be in their good books, but that is no reason to drop our principles and our interests. To make an exception for them would be crass cronyism. If you make exceptions to your rules for your mates, you weaken your ability to apply them to everyone else. How could we be harder on Japan and South Korea if they acquired nuclear weapons? Could we say Israel is less of a mate than India?”…… Continue reading
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 